Close Combat Issues- An Open Letter to GW

[Morticon]

This is my first draft of a letter I intend sending to GW. It's very strongly BA/SM themed, but deal with core 8th ed issues that I believe need consideration. 
 

To the Rules/ Game Design Team at Games Workshop.

First and foremost congratulations on what has been a clearly successful launch of 8th edition.  Locally, the most recent edition has brought back dozens of gamers, super-stimulated interest in game stores, and, if the various online forums are anything to go by, has done the same in other parts of the world too.

Beyond this, the team's dedication to the updates, errata, and on-the-fly changes is absolutely incredible.  It's been in want for years now.  Please keep this up!!!!!!

It's because of this approach that I feel the need to point out what I posit are heavily problematic aspects of 8th edition.  In so doing, I hope that consideration will be given to some kind of change that I think will greatly improve the enjoyment, interest and growth of the game.

I've been in the hobby for 20 years, playing Warhammer 40,000 in a diverse range of contexts from highly competitive events to casual games at the local store and in garages of friends. During this time, I’ve been fortunate have taken part in major tournaments on four different continents.    I mention this to provide context of my concerns and hopefully indicate that they are considerably thought out and done so from the perspective of a competent gamer. 

Also, because the lion’s share of this time has been playing Blood Angels or Space Marines of some shape or form, much of my commentary uses this army as a baseline and its issues are in relation to Blood Angels and Space Marines on the whole, with the gaming system concern as a background.

THE COMBAT PROBLEM

I believe there is a huge issue with the way close combat works in 8th edition.  That is, is largely ineffectual - and far worse for certain armies/units than others.

The hitting and damage system itself is perfect.  It's very simple and it works far better than before.  That being said, there are still a few glaring issues:

 

1. The inability for most units to do much damage in combat.

2. The lack of tactical value in getting most units into combat.

3. The ability for any unit to simply leave combat.

 

1.

There are a few units which I believe got it right in terms of cost and efficiency; Namely: Genestealers, Khorne Beserkers and to a lesser extent Ork boy squads.  These units are either incredibly fast moving or have rerolls to charge and other movement buffs.  This allows them to get INTO combat fairly easily.  Then, once there, the amount of attacks (Khorne Zerks attacking twice, ‘Stealers and Orks attacking lots) along with either high strength or the ability to "rend", means that they are putting out considerable damage to the units they charge.  They're also quite well costed – a ‘Zerker coming in at a paltry 17 points.  Orks are similar with a great amount of attacks with good strength for very, very cheap.  This means that these units are viable options – the likes of which I’ve not seen from any other armies.

For many other units, including supposed combat specialists like Space Marine Assault Squads or the slightly better Vanguard Veterans, the damage output at a base is sadly, sadly lacking. 
 

It is possible to maximise damage output and kit more expensive units, like Vanguard or Death Company with loads of power weapons.  The problem here is that you’re now investing far more points into units that are likely to take casualties, and then suffer the issues noted in points 2 and 3.

With 10 charging assault marines (ASM), 1 of which is the Sarge with a special of some kind, you're likely to get 18 attacks, 12 hitting.  Then if you're up against space marines, 6 wounds, with maybe 2 unsaved wounds against other marine equivalents if you're looking at probability; And with a Powerfist in the mix, maybe another wound. For a tactical squad, or a 5man squad of these dedicated assault marines - you're looking at 1 unsaved wound from the regular attacks.   That is of course with a full-sized squad without any casualties and all in attack range.  All unlikely.

Now, while these aren't terrible numbers it’s not strictly about unit for unit comparison. Khorne Bezerkers are the most feared fighters in the universe after all.

Rather, it’s the tactical value that is questionable and more importantly its relevant value in relation to shooting. 

Why charge in the first place?

 

2.

In 7th edition and prior, there was a chance of wiping out entire squads off of a single casualty.   While this was definitely (and unfairly) stacked in favour of fearless armies and loyalist marines with ATSKNF – a problem that was rightly done away with-  it made close combat a viable tactical objective.

Furthermore, the ability to prevent a unit from shooting has always been strong.  And still further, the ability to possibly defeat your opponent in your own turn, and become free only to engage more enemies meant modestly sized assault units were shielded from shooting for a turn or two. This leads directly to more broad army styles and inevitably more models bought.

Alternatively, you could simply tie your opponent up for few rounds as a viable tactic.

In 8th, most of this tactical nuance is gone.  This is as a result of what will be spoken about in point 3. 

Because of the lack of tactical value of having assault units or even melee weapons, this strongly, strongly influences list design and eventually broad meta (and I believe interest in the game and eventually sales).

As a marine player there is no real need or motivation to incorporate assault themed/ based units in standard missions.  This is, of course, even worse for armies like BA whose main signature units are assault oriented.  This means that maximising shooting lists becomes the norm and optimisation starts to happen, which in turn means the breadth of style of list becomes limited.  This just has a very stifling and stagnating effect on the game as a whole but puts off players with specific armies much quicker. Local (and international judging online) Black Templar players for example have eschewed their combat themed armies and have gravitated towards the additional shooting that Crusader Squads offer, despite having a trait that makes it easier to get into combat.

The ubiquity of “Fly” or other similar special rules allowing shooting after falling back means that efforts to get into combat are not met with any reward, nor are met with any drawback on the part of the enemy from falling out of combat. 

3.

This is possibly the most problematic mechanic of 8^th edition, and what I would argue is at the heart of the problem.  Never mind the fact that the enemy, once charged, can now fall "back" *towards* you, and never mind the fact that when the enemy moves out of combat, you are left standing where you charged without any opportunity to move - the complete ease of which this is done allows armies to simply accept a charge of whatever unit, and then slip out and destroy you with shooting. 

Why bother with fighty units? Unless you are able to destroy a unit on the charge, or at the very least completely hamstring it (and/or then subsequently tie up another unit), there's precious little tactical value in charging the enemy.  As mentioned in "2" - with minimal casualties, all the enemy need do is step out of combat and obliterate the assault unit that worked its way across the battlefield to get into combat.  This is very poor use of points on the side of the attacker - and we're paying a Marine premium for very little return.

At the release of 8^th, the pistol mechanic sounded amazing!  Yet, in the dozens of games I’ve played of 8th, I have used pistols in combat maybe once.  Just once. And that was against a novice opponent who didn’t leave combat (and was done after I had left combat so I could shoot the unit, rather than fight and do limited damage).

Even in games where LOS blocking terrain is plentiful (unusual), and jumping assault units are able to engage with their targets unmolested (unusual), all one need to is leave combat and shoot the assault units.

There needs to be some recourse for the ease with which this action/rule neuters an entire aspect of the game for so many armies.

 

SUGGESTIONS

I’m incredibly hesitant to offer suggestions in a letter like this, because too often it comes off as wish-listing.   

That being said, I’m hoping to at least draw attention to the problems and highlight that there are a myriad of fixes possible.

There are three possible changes: Either change the core rules, change assault units themselves or the introduction of army specific stratagems. 

A core change could be something akin to making it more tough to leave combat. 

Something like a straight roll-off and winner can prevent or initiate a "fall back" would go incredibly far in changing the entire dynamic of the game.  With more detail or nuance, a roll-off with a +1 to the victor of the combat would benefit and encourage attackers.   

 Either of these will make charging more tactically viable.

 An assault unit change is not a bad idea, but you'd either be writing rules to fiddle with the core mechanic, or making them stronger- which puts you firmly into the realm of point-for-point trading.  ie: While, you may kill something you hit, you then subsequently die in return anyway and it’s a straight trade off of unit per unit.  This means that armies gravitate towards doing the damage from afar where they don’t have to trade off unit for unit.

Ironically, despite the additional mobility many assault units have, a points reduction is possibly not a bad idea either/balance - albeit not fixing much- and dare I say it, the cost of Jump Pack upgrades should be free since it is offsetting the fact that you are unable to be transported into combat unharmed. 

Finally, stratagems. 

With 8^th edition revolving strongly around the use of stratagems, the simple inclusion of stratagems would be a very quick and simple fix.  Something as easy as:

“ "No Escape" 1-2 CP. Prevent up to two units engaged with BA infantry or walkers from Falling Back from combat.”.

Of course, this is a Blood Angel example, but it’s easily applied to other armies. The course/direction is obviously, entirely up to the game designers – but I would argue that the only net effect of this would be broader fighting styles, more tactical nuance and inevitably more sales.

ON THE BA

All of this being said, I wanted to end off with my thoughts on the Blood Angels. The upcoming codex will make or break this army – more so than other armies, because of the style of the BA.   I feel the Blood Angels are now in one of the worst positions out of all the marines, having so many unique units geared towards combat, yet combat being by far the weakest tactical option in a game.

While the BA have the ability, beyond everyone else, to buff their combat potential up with the use of characters, and while this may solve issue “1”, this ties players into spending hundreds of points of HQs that not only raise the cost of the base units, but do nothing to compensate for problems “2” and “3”.

The BA have such an incredible range of cool models – yet the majority of them are overpriced and are bound to a poor tactical aspect of the game.

I implore GW to give this iconic army the time and effort it deserves in terms of overall game mechanic.
 

IN CLOSING

It is my hope that these core issues will be fixed (or at least seriously considered) allowing a greater variation of tactical play to be brought back into a game which has fast swung towards maximising shooting output of one’s respective army.  I’m of the opinion that the company has generated more social momentum and general positive support this year than it has ever done before.  It would be incredible to keep this up.

 

________________________



So yeah....still first draft- but these are my thoughts so far.  Its  a little scattered, so I will work on it before I send.

What are your thoughts?

What do you find in your area? 


 

 

 

[Damon Nightman]

I don't have much constructive feedback unfortunately, but I think it's pretty solid. I don't think it's too scattered. It's definitely easily comprehensible.

 

I really like it and agree! I appreciate you taking the time to do this!

[Indefragable]

 

Well done.

 

I think with a little touch-up, it's fine as it is. However, depending on how deep you want to go (read: time and effort), I think including more data on other Factions would nail the point home. How are Necrons in CQC this edition? Harlequins? Etc...

 

In general, there are three ways to look at it:

A) issues with the base game

B ) issues with certain units in the game

C) issues with the Faction

 

The bottom line is that the BA are in a :cuss spot right now. The question is, do WE need to be fixed, or does the game?

 

I emphasize that because so many of the core complaints I had about BA in 7th (scattering DS, Initiative, etc...) have been essentially "fixed" in the base game of 8th....but has not really improved our Faction at all. In fact, I would argue they have hurt us a bit since our differentiators and competitive edge has been severely blunted.

[Arkangilos]

Great letter. I can't wait to see how they reply!

[Brother Captain Sirus]

While space marines have always been classed as the middle ground and the general mold all other units are balanced around, i really dont understand why they only have 1 attack in cc, the emperors finest cant put out more punches than a guardsman.

It would have been nice if they had 2 attacks on their standard profile, but that would probably be seen as a step to far by players who use xenos armies.

[TheHarrower]

It's well written and makes a lot of sense. The problem with any dedicated assault army is you just aren't safe. You aren't safe getting there, you aren't safe in assault as the unit will break off and other stuff shoots you, and you really don't do enough damage to what you are assaulting so that unit will hurt you in subsequent turns.

 

Leaving assault should be a risk and not the defacto smart thing to do. A roll off is better, but I would go a step further. If you don't successfully break off, models within 1" of your models (i.e. not the entire unit) get to make an attack. This could of course bog down play, and if we see that as an issue we could go with every model in the unit deals a mortal wound to the fleeing unit on a 4+ (or 5+ it'll need to be playtested). Fleeing units can't save. They are interested in only running away.

 

Doing something like that will make it a more tactical decision and have it be a risk for units that always want to break from combat. Heck, bringing back the +1 attack on the charge would help with this. As is, the "bonus" to charging isn't really a bonus unless you are using a unit like Death Company that gets a bonus. Lot of ways this could be fixed, but like you said, something needs to be done to adjust the balance.

[Rafen IX]

I agree with all of the above points. I hope our codex gives us the boost we need to overcome this current dilemma. Maybe a discounted Comman Point Strategem on fighting twice?

[Morticon]

It's well written and makes a lot of sense. The problem with any dedicated assault army is you just aren't safe. You aren't safe getting there, you aren't safe in assault as the unit will break off and other stuff shoots you, and you really don't do enough damage to what you are assaulting so that unit will hurt you in subsequent turns.

 

Leaving assault should be a risk and not the defacto smart thing to do. A roll off is better, but I would go a step further. If you don't successfully break off, models within 1" of your models (i.e. not the entire unit) get to make an attack. This could of course bog down play, and if we see that as an issue we could go with every model in the unit deals a mortal wound to the fleeing unit on a 4+ (or 5+ it'll need to be playtested). Fleeing units can't save. They are interested in only running away.

 

Doing something like that will make it a more tactical decision and have it be a risk for units that always want to break from combat. Heck, bringing back the +1 attack on the charge would help with this. As is, the "bonus" to charging isn't really a bonus unless you are using a unit like Death Company that gets a bonus. Lot of ways this could be fixed, but like you said, something needs to be done to adjust the balance.

 

really like that. 

[yodaid764]

Question:

Having only read the CRB once thus far, I understand that if a unit Falls Back, it cannot shoot unless it has the Fly ability.

[Morticon]

I agree with all of the above points. I hope our codex gives us the boost we need to overcome this current dilemma. Maybe a discounted Comman Point Strategem on fighting twice?

 

For matched thats just one unit, once.  Still have all the other problems- though its not a bad idea at all.  

Question:

Having only read the CRB once thus far, I understand that if a unit Falls Back, it cannot shoot unless it has the Fly ability.

 

Correct.  So, you technically prevent one non-fly, non-special-rule unit from firing.  But then the rest of of the army shoots you to hell.  That unit that left is also freely available to move in whatever direction they choose.  Heaven forbid you charge bikers or jump pack or other fast moving units- then they get massively close to you and your important stuff you tried to prevent being intercepted in the first place :( 

[Indefragable]

What about some sort of Leadership test for units that Fall Back, with a negative modifier? Represents that even the most orderly withdrawal will suffer casualties. And word it so that pseudo-Fearless (like DW Knights) would not be immune.

 

In general, assault will always be "worse" than shooting in 40k based on the sheer logistics of it:

 

Shooting = Move, Shoot (variable results)

Assault = Move, Charge (variable results), Survive Overwatch (variable results), attack (variable results)

 

...it's literally double the number of factors. As a result, if you I want any hope of doing anything in assault, you need to be either:

 

1) really maneuverable (like a Black Templars bike)

2) really survivable (TH/SS terminators, etc...)

3) really really killy to make sure things DIE on the occasion you actually get into combat (i.e. Khorne Berzerkers)

 

...which leaves units like Assault Space Marines woefully "bleh."

 

Without getting too far off topic, I think if the game mechanic was adjusted so that EVERYONE got a guaranteed 6" charge, with the possibility of an additional D6" (so 6"+D6"), or if you were guaranteed charges of x" but you only got bonuses (or the enemy got full OW if you failed) based on your rolls, or heck even if you just moved the distance you rolled for charges even if it's not enough to actually get into combat.....then things would suddenly start looking better.

 

I mean, it makes sense that you should be at a bit of a disadvantage brining a knife to a gunfight, but

 

A) this is 40k

B ) if you want to use that logic, anyone NOT equipped with a CQC should have -1 To Hit in CQC

 

 

Or heck, if there were just truckloads more Attacks for everyone, that could make things more interesting as well. Like if chainswords doubled the # of attacks made by the bearer when using that weapon :o

[Morticon]

I thought about 6s generating extra attacks for chainswords, or even -1 armour mod to chainswords. All of those, are really helpful.  Could even say -1 vs. non-vehicles etc.  But, again- all of the additionals get so convoluted.  

[Quixus]

I thought about 6s generating extra attacks for chainswords, or even -1 armour mod to chainswords. All of those, are really helpful.  Could even say -1 vs. non-vehicles etc.  But, again- all of the additionals get so convoluted.  

While this would make ASM a tad better it does not address the conceptional problems with assault in 8th edition.

 

Your initial draft sounds good though.

[Indefragable]

I thought about 6s generating extra attacks for chainswords, or even -1 armour mod to chainswords. All of those, are really helpful. Could even say -1 vs. non-vehicles etc. But, again- all of the additionals get so convoluted.

Exactly. You would definitely want to keep the wishlisting to a bare minimum in an Open Letter to GW. You want them to see a legitimate concern and valid ways to fix it as opposed to anything that can be perceived as fanboy dreaming.

 

But since it's just too fun on a forum among friends...

Hidden Content

In 7th, I thought chainswords should be S:User AP- Melee, Rending.

 

The +1A is actually pretty cool idea. However, I don't think it goes far enough to represent what a chainsword is in the fluff. My idea is having something like "For each attack made using this weapon, you may make one additional attack using this weapon'svststs. Additional attacks do not result in further attacks." That way the chainsword is a legitimate option compared to other types of weapons, and has it's place among its peers: the dedicated anti-horde weapon.

 

#wishlisting is fun

[OrbOfAntioch]

I appreciate that one of us is dedicated enough to try to address the problem to GW. Writing wise I'd make the lead more apparent, don't bury it in the early mid section. I know it is quite a bit of work, but more statistical evidence would help out to address the utility of combat vs. shooting for respective units. 

 

We could ask if they had intended combat damage in 8th to a supplement to shooting, as opposed to a major damage phase of its own (which is somewhat what I feel about what combat has become with its current power, a finishing move after unleashing guns), and if that's not the intention, how they can make combat more potent. 

 

Unless GW is suggesting that every army should have a large degree of firepower, then combat-oriented armies SHOULD be a thing, but the power of combat oriented armies just does not deliver, now, communicating this with sufficient evidence is tricky and certainly beyond me..

[JamesI]

well said Morticon!

 

The issues with assault have basically made me stop playing BA and focus on my Chaos army instead.

[Crimson Ghost IX]

Morticon, I totally support this idea.

I thank you for taking the time =)

 

Some thoughts on the letter:

Consider changing the tone in the middle to include more "mostly" rather than absolute "always" where you can.

 

I like the assault marine example, but running through the same line of thinking with a kitted veteran squad or terminators etc might be a more impacting example.

My first thought was GW is going to think well BA have access to better CQC units is what I mean.

 

To continue your point you might like to point out what say a devastator squad for similar points can do sitting back in easy buff mode.

 

Your thoughts on pistols, falling back/forward, ease of getting away etc are all very valid.

Something perhaps to draw more attention too is mobile assault units and associated support character bubble difficulties (especially important for marines).

 

I don't have more time today, but wanted to get some thoughts for you.

Thanks again.

[Malios]

The big error is your line where you state "I've been playing competitively for 20 years."

 

My recommendation is to alter it to: "I've been in the hobby for 20 years, playing warhammer 40000 in a diverse range of contexts from highly competitive events to casual games at the local store."

 

 

Diversity will give more gravitas to the statement and appeal to a greater target audience.

[Prot]

My personal opinion is in principle what you propose is a good idea, I just don't think in practice it would work.

 

There are too many exceptionally fast units that would be far too penal to armies that really don't assault at all. I've played a ton of games in 8th and with many different armies, and the biggest problem I have with your idea personally is GW would absolutely have to fix hordes first.

 

GW killed aura/flyer spam in two blows. That's great. But the problem I've had with their system since day one is still a huge issue... it's just easy mode in 8th to spam unbreakable chaff that LOVES sitting in CC for hours and hours. 

 

Facing Conscript spam, IG parking lot indirect fire, and this army type is too accessible to too many armies... Forgeworld armies, Xenos armies... there's too much of it already. It gives them serious board control and it cannot be broken.

 

GW is making that type of list far too accessible and it is my prediction with flyer spam gone, all you're gonna see until the next nerf/FAQ is blobs that won't break and high end shooty. 

 

If you made it too difficult for the entangled units to retreat, then these armies get doubly powerful holding up expensive units that will never shoot. And against armies that can't deal with CC at all, they will be actually conquered by this low end chaff.

 

I think GW has to fix cheap blob armies first, or this empowers them even more so. 

 

Otherwise I think the idea is okay, but I actually don't feel too strongly on this matter right now simply because there is one codex in the game.

[Quixus]

I think nerfing the shooty hordes and parking lot armies is the poorer solution. Instead of making another style of army more appealing you make two styles less appealing. This would remove diversity from armies instead of adding it.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

I tabled a white scars list with my Tyranids earlier this week. I have played less than a handful of proper 8th ed games, but I can definitely agree there are some irritating rules, us marine players face wanting melee centric armies.

 

I think Stratagems are really the key to helping. Example "only in death" for Grey Knights, being able to attack again after dying is a big deal.

 

I would chat up some of the AoS brigade for pointers, it is what I have done for tactics.

 

I do also agree about pistols, I haven't used them but once, and that was in this game on Thursday, where my opponent stayed locked in combat with my Death Leaper, and I was able to actually use his fleshhooks. which did nothing.

 

to the fall back, I wish it was you have to disengage and move straight back. I actually used this to coral one of his melee centric units to keep him from being able to move anywhere, then shot his unit to pieces before assaulting for mop up.

 

Edit:

 

So I don't double post. I've had some conversations with people from both ends of the pond, and it's always a split on melee centric armies. Some people have accepted Wagon Rush or Rhino Rush as their go to for assault.

 

Others have found Storm Raven Assault with 1-2 assault oriented units in a Storm Raven with Ironclad or equivalent to jump over enemy lines to assault with much success. Some use rhinos with cargo or distraction units such as assault scouts etc. to push up for that crucial multi assault to encircle a unit to keep them from being able to disengage.

 

Tactically there are still ways to keep the strength of assault armies, it is the process of finding what works.

[Quixus]

I think Stratagems are really the key to helping. Example "only in death" for Grey Knights, being able to attack again after dying is a big deal.

Marines shouldn't only be somewhat good in CC if they die. Additionally that shouldn't only a couple of times or remove the options to use other stratagems.

[The Unseen]

Something that's basically a problem across the board is that even with the massive, and really really necessary drop in points for melee weapons, assault still isn't worth doing for most armies, but especially marines that pay a lot of points for being "generalists". Lets take one of the absolute best melee units in the game that happens to wear power armor, berzerkers. A unit of 10 with chainaxes put out 62 Str6 AP-1 attacks on the charge spread out among 2 activations. That's a lot, no question. But for the same points as those 10 berzerkers, you could take 4 tarantula guns with twin assault cannons, or 6 guns if you include the rhino those berzerkers will definitely need to make it into combat. Those will put out 72 Str6 AP-1 shots AT 24", against whatever unit might be in range, though admitedly hitting on 4+s instead of 3+'s. You don't have to trundle across the table, and brave overwatch to start doing damage turn 2 at best. You can instead just shoot the enemy from the get go.

 

And berzerkers are being raved about as really good, or even a tad OP, but it's pathetically easy to generate similar damage output from a distance with much more common shooting units, and that isn't seen as a big deal. The only exceptions are stuff like the hordes mentioned, that get just a ridiculous number of attacks for how cheap they are, so they can just walk across the board, take the casualties on the chin, and still have enough left over to wipe stuff out, with the added benefit of being able to score objectives really easy.

[bc99]

I hate to be a downer here, but want to throw this on the table:

 

From WD June 2017, page 37, New Ways to Wage War Article by Jes Bickham and Robin Cruddace; side bar in orange:

 

"More Dakka: Warhammer 40,000 is a game about shooting more than anything else now, with this new edition. It's shootier than ever..."

 

The writing was on the wall then, same as now. I just hope they adjust the points scale to those units that rely on close combat. I remember the old adage that to make an assault on the enemy you need 2-3 times as many attackers as defenders. That's really hard in a Space Marine army.

 

Anyway, this is going to be a tough balancing act. I think it'll come down to our stratagems and abilities.

[Morticon]

Some absolutely fantastic feedback from the community. 

Thanks a lot guys. 

 

Regarding the shooty, this wouldnt be a problem if BA werent poised to be the assault marine army :/ Just leaves us out in the cold, and building poor-mans shooty lists.  

I still revile the suggestion of having to spend 500 points in characters to make combat worthwhile for the BA <_< Not how it should be.